Module 2: Week 4 post-class

One observation that I noted through the Laffey and Weldes reading was that they did not reject the notion of ideas being used as tools by those who wield power. Quite often they referred to interpretations of ideas as tools or commodities as being incomplete when described by rationalist academics. Their main criticism stems from the notion that in order for ideas to be "wielded" (Laffey and Weldes, 206) by policy-makers, they must be separated from beliefs as beliefs cannot be changed and molded in such a quick manner as to be manipulated. Rather, their definition of symbolic technologies allows the room for actors and policy-makers to create rhetorical devices and symbols for their own rational self-interest, but draws the line at implying the have agency over the ideas once they have been created. I believe this interpretation to be most accurate, although I personally would have preferred if the authors would have elaborated more on this issue. Actors can create symbols which can be used in the pursuit of their own rational self-interest (as they perceive those interests to be),  however the idea may be molded into something else entirely once released into society. My initial reading of Laffey and Weldes made me believe that their interpretation of ideas did not allow for actor-centered interpretations of international relations, but upon re-reading their text with this goal in mind I discovered this to be untrue. I believe it is important to make this distinction as in order to understand the events in many authoritarian regimes and other top-down styles of government, an actor centered interpretation is required (at least to further some kinds of discussion) to understand how events unfold.

Mark Laffey and Jutta Weldes, "Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relationships," European Journal of International Relations, 3:2, 1997.